kimmy

As I said earlier a couple of posts ago, it's hard to guess whether this child would have been removed if not for the hate aspect of the story. The swastika obviously brought the scrutiny in the first place. As well, it's quite possible that the workers who evaluated the situation were prejudiced, hoping to find reasons. Would the degree of substance abuse and conflict between the parents have been characterized as dangerous to the child if it had been party-loving hippies having marital troubles instead of neo-Nazis? These are subjective evaluations, and it seems likely that most people's view would be swayed by the Nazi aspect. I'm not sure it's fair to speculate that the parenting issues were afterthoughts in the decision to remove the children, however, even though the article frames it that way. They were clearly an afterthought for the reporters who wrote about this case, but it's not a given that the same can be said for the social workers who made this decision. -k

Well, I did say "comparable". I didn't mean we should drop hockey and take up baseball. However, it's hard to imagine a Prime Minister strapping on the blades and taking a ceremonial First Slapshot. -k

Why? -k

Wow... where to start. August's claim that this incident devalues a degree from this university? If I were planning to hire an engineer, or a nurse, or a botanist, or a business administrator, would this incident prejudice my view of their credentials? No. I'm not sure I follow the logic as to how this makes a Carleton graduate less credible. Maybe a better school would have higher standards and keep morons like these out? I dunno. I'm also not inspired by the claim that "Israeli Apartheid Week" fosters an environment that makes an incident like this more likely. I disagree. I think "Israeli Apartheid Week" is a symptom, not a cause. "Liberal tolerance"? I think it's a safe bet that crazy machete-swinging Arabs aren't "liberals". I do realize that there are super-left-wingy types who get frothing-at-the-mouth angry over all things Israel... we've got a few of them here on this message board... but I doubt these are the sort of people to actually confront someone face to face at all, much less swing a machete at them. -k

Given the choice between a President who knows a lot about baseball or one who reads a lot of books, I'd choose the guy who reads a lot of books, all other things being equal. I don't think Obama is trying to deceive people into thinking he's a big baseball guy. I think he's doing this because it's traditional and expected and he's being a good sport about it. I also think it's a charming tradition, and I kind of wish we had a comparable one here in Canada. Finally, I recall during the election that some of the board's prominent Obama supporters were challenging people to find a way to make fun of Obama without mentioning race... and you've gotta admit, watching him attempt to baseball is pretty hilarious. -k

Again, while the swastika might have raised the flag, it appears that there were other factors that resulted in the child being taken from the home. IF the white supremacist views were the ONLY factor in the child being taken from the home, then I think that it is an abuse of power. It's difficult to see how anything remotely positive could come for this child from being taught white supremacist beliefs at home. It is likely that instilling those values in a child will impair the child's ability to succeed at anything in life. It's doubtful a child raised to be a neo-Nazi will ever contribute anything of value to our society. It's hard to stomach the idea that a parent should be allowed to push a child in a direction that's a surefire guarantee of failure. I find it troubling, and I feel badly for that child. However, I think this is a slippery-slope type situation. If you can take kids away from neo-Nazi parents, what about other values we don't care for? Like, that mosque in Vancouver that was caught teaching that Jews are swine? If parents are taking kids to that mosque, should they be taken away too? Religious kooks who make the womenfolk live a shed during that time of the month? Luddites? Communists? 9/11 conspiracy kooks? Trekkies? There's a real argument to be made that these sorts of parents could be hurting their childrens' chances of being successful in life. But improving a child's chance of being successful in life isn't supposed to be the objective. Protecting children from harm is, and that should have a strict and literal meaning, not a subjective evaluation of value systems. There was an argument presented in bjre's video that the child was being put in danger because she might have been beaten up by people who don't like Nazis. Fair enough, but you could make the same argument in regard to a boy whose parents send him to figure-skating class. Taking away someone's children because other people might object to what you're teaching them is the definition of mob rule. -k

None of what you've argued in the past week has been remotely intelligent, and I gave your inane claims far more consideration than they deserved. And you're the one who stopped writing about the topic and started making it about your opponent, so you should think twice before calling others juvenile. And if it makes you feel better to tell yourself that I'm following your directions, then feel free... but it's pretty ... juvenile. -k

I've given you more intelligent responses than your poorly thought out posts in this thread have deserved. From your attempts to deny that Houle was acting as an official of the school when he sent that letter, to the idea that the CAUT letter doesn't represent that organization's position, to the attempt to equate the situation with Moore to this situation, you've been circling the drain for a whole week in this thread. And this latest stratagem... going back 2 years to prove ... that I wrote something uncomplimentary about Hilary Clinton? Wow. When you have to reach back that far and come up with something that lame, that kind of speaks for itself. Congratulations on proving to the world that I have written mean things about various public figures. I'm all about intellectual growth. And I hope you are too. Although you're many, many, many years my senior, you're never too old to learn new things. And one thing that maybe you can learn from this is that when all you have left to say is something that dumb, you should reconsider hitting the "Add Reply" button. -k

Rest assured, human rights conditions in China have absolutely everything todo with this thread. The original poster makes a full-time job of trying to convince people that our rights and freedoms here in Canada contrast poorly with those in the Glorious People's Republic. Whether it is complaining that stupid law does preventing industrious Canadian from earn money by perform surgery or build house or wire electrical without permit, or whether it is how stupid law prevent adventurous Canadian entrepreneur from put healthful melamine in food product, or whether Canadian produce epic genocide far greater than Mao because millions aboriginals killed by smallpox, bjre is here on a mission, and his mission is about China. (I am personally skeptical that he's actually "here" at all, btw.) We're dealing with a guy who argues with sincerity that there was no massacre in Tienanmen Square, because most of the protesters were killed before they actually got to the square. Is it worthwhile to attempt a good faith discussion with a guy like that? Cruise though some of his earlier threads on the subject, and you get no attempt at a discussion, just a series of anecdotal evidence. That said, this is a legitimate issue, even if bjre's efforts aren't. In the earlier thread on the subject it was mentioned that while the swastika was the headline-grabbing aspect of this case, the parenting in this home was highly dubious even without the white supremacist aspect. There's two sides to that. The first is, maybe this case received undue attention from the school and the authorities due to the white supremacist aspect. It might be that another case where a child was in the hands of equally poor parents goes unnoticed because she didn't do anything as attention-grabbing. We would have to ask ourselves, in which case did the system fail a child? The one who got taken away from shoddy parents because the swastika grabbed the attention of her school? Or the child who was left with shoddy parents because nobody at the school noticed anything? I think that's a difficult question, and one that we can't really address without having knowledge of the surrounding information. And that's the other side: the white supremacist aspect of this case grabbed attention that's not typical for this type of story. We don't really know much about a "typical" case where a child is taken out of a home. -k

Elections Canada's core values are to uphold the rules of Canadian elections. The University of Ottawa's core values are, allegedly, to uphold academic freedom. If Houle worked for Elections Canada instead of the University of Ottawa, and if Coulter were visiting during an election campaign, maybe you'd have a point. I'm partisan, and I don't like Coulter. And I don't care about the personal attacks made against her in this thread. I didn't respond to any of them, and I've made similar cracks in the past. Moore, Hilary, Barack's pipe-cleaner arms, Chretien's mangled grill, Paul Martin's Tic-Tac sized testicles (that's conjecture, not first-hand information...), Harper's chunky ass, and probably many others that I've forgotten. I felt at home making fun of Moore's morbid obesity because that's just the kind of thread it is. Others set the tone long before I did. What about you? I don't recall you chiding anybody for the attacks on Coulter's appearance, but one comment on Moore's weight problems and you jump on it. Perhaps your halo could use a little polishing. -k

Fair enough. I should have said that the complaint against Moore was based on an incident that had already occured, as opposed to speculation that he might break the law in the future. I guess we would need a formal definition of what is considered an "inducement" to know for sure. We don't have free speech in Canada during elections. Unlike Coulter's right to speak her mind, which is limited only by the ability of the crown to prove incitement of hatred, Moore was involving himself in an election campaign, and therefore up against Canada's complicated and restrictive election campaign laws, which are highly limiting of 3rd-party advocacy during elections. Sorry, the standard is completely different. Canada's right-of-center has fought against Canada's rules regarding speech during campaigns a number of times, and been defeated each time. If Canada's right-of-center had its way, Moore would have been free to do as he wished during the election. These rules are vigorously defended by Canada's left, justified by the belief that they prevent the "elite" from using their wealth and influence to overwhelm opposing voices during elections. They have been used to prevent groups such as the National Citizens Coalition from advertising during elections. To make a long story short: if Canadians are to be stuck with these restrictions, it is imperative that these restrictions be applied fairly. Or, as the guy in the article put it, the only thing worse than a gag-law is a gag-law that is selectively applied. If it were a conservative millionaire, Netajian might not have spoken out, but someone else undoubtedly would. Given the success of Canada's left in using these rules to silence groups like the NCC, that's a given. I don't think the young man in the article was acting a free speech advocate (that battle had been lost repeatedly when challenges to Election Canada rules were turned down.) He was acting as someone attempting to ensure the rules applied to the left too. -k

I don't like Coulter. I don't think I've ever said a kind thing about Coulter. I've said at least a couple of times in this thread alone that I think she's an idiot. My disagreement with what happened at U of O is not because I like her, any more than the CAUT's statement regarding what happened at U of O is because they like her, or any more than the ACLU's defense of KKK's right to speak is an endorsement of their beliefs. -k

Mr. Harper "has a big pair of scissors in his hands and wants to snip away at the social safety net that distinguishes from ." He suggested a Conservative victory in the June 28 election would "be such a blow to those of us trying to get rid of Bush." "You've got four days after it [Fahrenheit 9/11] opens to get people out to the polls to make sure that Mr. Harper does not become your next prime minister." The law reads: "No person who does not reside in Canada shall, during an election period, in any way induce electors to vote or refrain from voting for a particular candidate unless the person is (a) a Canadian citizen; or ( a permanent resident." ...so this seems pretty cut-and-dried. The difference being that the complaints regarding Moore came *after* he broke Canada's laws. They're just factually accurate statements. Not much different from descriptions of Coulter as "that blonde bitch", discussions of her Adam's apple, or the speculation that she may be a dude. -k

Since Moore was actively campaigning against the Conservative Party of Canada during an election, it was an entirely legitimate complaint. There is a lot of debate regarding the restrictiveness of Canada's rules regarding how election campaigns may be contested, and whether these rules are reasonable restrictions on free expression. However, a big fat foreigner campaigning against a Canadian party is clearly opposed to the spirit of those rules, and if Moore was unwilling to respect the rules, keeping his tubby ass out of the country during the election was entirely reasonable. Nobody is disagreeing that Francois Houle has the right to express himself. There is widespread agreement, however, that it is inappropriate for a university official to request a guest speaker limit the contents of her speech. If Houle wished to express his opinion of Coulter, he should certainly have done so as a private individual. -k

It's not a fact. Nor is your ridiculous claim that the CAUT letter is just the personal opinions of Penni Stewart and James Turk a fact. Not surprisingly, every article I've seen regarding the CAUT letter recognized it as a statement from the CAUT, not the opinion of two people. It's the opinion of two people who just happen to have the complete authority to state that opinion on behalf of their organization. Likewise Houle. If the letter had come from some guy in the campus IT department, you'd have a point, because that guy would obviously not have any sort of authority to speak on behalf of the university. Houle, on the other hand, does. Yeah, right after he welcomed her to "our campus", he started writing "I" instead of "we". So what? As the senior exec for academics at the university, he has the authority to speak on this issue whether he's saying "I" or "we". He was clearly sending the email as Provost and VP Academic. With a job title like that, any reasonable person would believe that he is de facto representing the university. So if Houle was acting independently of the university, why has his employer not issued any sort of statement to clarify that Houle's letter was not representative of the university? I forgot to ask earlier: who are these "many people" who support Houle on this? I have yet to see a single expert opinion, or any professor, or academic group, or a single columnist of any note, endorse what Houle did. Among credible observers, there's almost universal agreement that it was poor judgment and at-odds with the purpose of a university. Those writing in support of Houle, as far as I can tell, seem to be people who are just happy that somebody told the mean woman to watch her mouth. -k

We already covered this. I think I already said that if all Houle had said is "personally, I think she's an idiot," I'd have been fine with that. Personally, I think she's an idiot too. Nicky asked my how what happened at Columbia is different from what happened at U of O, and I asked whether Columbia's president had threatened Makmood with legal consequences if he stepped out of line. Of course not, you informed me. Well, that's the difference. Makmood, a guy with a track record of calling for Israel's obliteration and denying the Holocaust, was (as far as I have seen) not given any warning at all as to what he could say. Coulter, with a track record of ... making fun of Muslims, apparently, was informed that if she wasn't careful about what she said, the RCMP would be getting in her business. You guys don't see a difference? I see a huge difference. Houle's letter was clearly an attempt to "put her on notice" using the not-too-subtle threat of criminal charges. And not only that, but it was also not a particularly honest threat either, since virtually nothing Coulter could have said would have resulted in the law coming after her. Even the most extreme statements she's made in the past could probably not be prosecuted in Canada (I seem to recall something about assassinating Bill Clinton that might qualify...) So it's not just an attempt at getting her to limit the contents of her speech... but a dishonest attempt. A puffed up threat with no substance, intended to either intimidate her or to appease certain elements on campus. Actually, I believe the Columbia president's comments regarding Makmood's reprehensible views were, explicitly, centered on Makmood's Holocaust denials. And again, nobody showed me anything at all where Makmood was told what he could or couldn't say. In fact, I think I recall that one of the articles I read contained assurances from university officials that people *would* have the opportunity to question him on his Holocaust statements. To me, that's how an institution that's committed to the free exchange of ideas would deal with a controversial speaker. -k

Whether all 65,000 members agree with the position or not, the letter is an official communication on behalf of their organization, sent by the leaders of the organization. So yes, the CAUT letter does represent the members. You have got to be kidding me. That is utterly ridiculous. If he was acting as "Francois Houle, regular citizen" and not "Francois Houle, Vice-President Academic and Provost, University of Ottawa" ...then why did he sign the letter "Francois Houle, Vice-President Academic and Provost, University of Ottawa"??? The content of the letter makes it clear that he is speaking on behalf of the campus. ("We are, of course, always delighted to welcome speakers on our campus...") He sent it from his work email, he cc'ed his colleagues, and he signed his job title to it. For you to somehow try to argue that he wasn't acting in any official capacity is just ridiculous beyond words. It *is* a CAUT letter: it's an official communication delivered on behalf of the organization. Houle's letter is a "University of Ottawa" letter for the same reason. I'll address Makmood v Columbia in my next post, since bloodyminded jumped in on that too. However, the comparison to a McDonalds worker representing his employer isn't ridiculous at all. When you're on the job, you may still have the constitutional right to free speech, but your employer expects you avoid saying things that are at odds with the employer's values. A judge has the right to free speech, but when he is in the court-room, he can't just say anything that pops into his head. He might think a witness is a lying idiot, but if he voices that opinion during testimony, the whole trial may be ruined. It is one thing for a guy to say "all you people ought to go back where you came from" and it is quite another if the guy saying it is an on-duty RCMP officer. There have been teachers fired for spreading views that were at odds with the curriculum or deemed potentially intimidating to students. And if the university really values the free exchange of ideas, then an official of the university warning a guest speaker to watch her mouth certainly appears to be at odds with that value. When the caution to mind her mouth came in an formal communication from a high ranking university official, that's highly debatable. They wrote a letter, signed their job titles to it, posted it on their organization's website, and sent it to Houle's boss, Allan Rock. For you to somehow not grasp that this was an official communication on behalf of their organization, is mind-boggling. And for you to not grasp that Houle's letter was likewise an official communication on behalf of his employer... I'm just speechless. Then we find ourselves looking for some other rationale for what prompted Houle's warning. -k

As Dick already pointed out, the population of the Americas was not 100 million before Columbus arrived, and so Chavez was full of crap in making that claim, and you are compounding the lie by repeating it. You are making great efforts to foolish yourself and can blaming only yourself. -k

Well, everybody's got opinions. Not all of them are formed with the same basis of understanding of the facts and principles involved. So, on the one hand we've got a group of 65,000 members that has been shaping university policies and fighting for academic freedom for over 50 years. And on the other hand, there's ... well, you. If the subject is academic freedom or what's appropriate conduct for a member of the university administration, I think most people would agree their opinion is more pertinent than yours. It's odd that you understand the distinction between "Ellen Ocran: concerned citizen" and "Ellen Ocran: aide to MP Pat Martin", and yet you don't seem to recognize the difference between "Francois Houle: concerned citizen" and "Francois Houle: Provost and VP Academic for the University of Ottawa". There is no question that Francois Houle, private citizen, has the right to say all of that. The question is whether it is appropriate for Francois Houle, senior representative of his university, to say what he said. We are all well aware that there are many instances where a message that is entirely legal and protected is still completely inappropriate for someone's profession. I'm sure we're all aware of cases where judges and policemen and medical people and teachers and others have said things that would be entirely fair comments coming from a guy on the street but are completely unacceptable coming from representatives of the judicial or law enforcement or medical or educational professions. And, as the CAUT letter explains, a university official cautioning a guest speaker about what she can say is at odds with the fundamental values behind what a university is supposed to represent. McDonald's corporation is probably a big supporter of free speech too, but I bet they don't let their employees greet customers with "hey, fatty, you should order a salad." When you're acting in an official capacity as a representative of your employer-- and it is beyond question that Houle was doing so when he issued this letter-- you're expected to act in accordance with your employer's policies, or chances are you're not going to be employed for much longer. So if the University of Ottawa's policy is to caution guest speakers to mind their mouths, then Houle was acting in accordance with their policy and we should be asking the U of O to explain how it reconciles this policy with the principles of academic freedom and the exchange of ideas that are supposed to be fundamental values of universities. And if he wasn't acting in accordance with U of O policy, I think it's reasonable to request them to explain what that policy actually is, issue some sort of statement regarding the issue, and if appropriate, a reprimand to Mr Houle. I guess we would have to know why it was a "first". Usually firsts occur for just a few reasons: -never had the opportunity to do it before. -change of policy, told to do something that hadn't been done previously. -circumstances changed in a way that make something a better decision than it had been previously. We know it wasn't Houle's first opportunity... the Israeli Apartheid event just a couple of weeks prior had guest speakers, for instance... so it looks like one of the latter two. If there was some official change of policy at the university, I'd be interested in hearing about it. If Houle evaluated the circumstances and found them to be different with previous guest speakers, I'd be interested in hearing about that as well. Whatever the case, I think it is entirely reasonable to expect this person and, or, this university, to explain the situation. -k

I don't think there was anything cryptic about Lictor's beliefs. He was pretty up front about it. He hasn't been here for months, btw. While I do not like Lictor or his ideology, I'd suggest that even odious views can result in important topics being raised. -k

Chavez is a communist, a totalitarian, and a moron... three qualities that bjre can relate to. -k

Que? -k

You might not be sure, but the Canadian Association of University Teachers doesn't think it was appropriate: Whether the University of Ottawa thinks it was out of line would be relevant if the question were Mr Houle's job safety, which as far as I know is not in any danger. Whether the University of Ottawa thinks it was out of line is also relevant in the sense that it tells us where they really stand on the issues referred to in the CAUT letter. If the UofO doesn't see a problem with what Houle did, that doesn't reflect well on them as an institution. Whether he sent similar warnings to other speakers is relevant to the claims of bias. -k

All of this is very well said. -k

And if he was expressing that view as Francois Houle, guy on the street, that's a perfectly legitimate opinion. Since he clearly sent the letter in his capacity as a senior representative of the school, I'm not sure it's appropriate. We still haven't heard whether he sent similar warnings to other potentially controversial speakers who have attended. -k